|
Avoiding accidental catches of cetaceans in fishing gear
European Commission
28th July 2003
The European Commission has adopted a draft Regulation ( pdf187 Kb) to curb the accidental capture of cetaceans such as dolphins and harbour porpoises in fishing gear as this is threatening the conservation of these species.
Questions
1. Why has the EU not done anything before now to protect dolphins from fishing gear?
2. Why has the Commission not proposed to ban pelagic pair trawling for bass which are responsible for the death of hundreds of dolphins?
3. Why has the Commission not proposed the use of pingers on pelagic trawls?
4. Why ban driftnets in the Baltic?
5. Are the proposed measures based on scientific advice?
6. Is the Commission aware of the sea trials carried out in some Member States to prevent by-catches of cetaceans?
7. What is the estimated cost of the proposed measures on the fishing industry?
Please see below for the European Commission answers.
Question 1
Q. Why has the EU not done anything before now to protect dolphins from fishing gear?
A. It is not correct to say that the EU has done nothing to protect dolphins. Cetaceans are protected under Community law. Under the Habitats directive, Member States have committed themselves to undertaking surveillance of the state of populations of cetaceans, as well as monitoring their incidental killing with a view to adopting mitigation measures wherever necessary. In addition, given their impact on cetaceans, the use of driftnets in tuna fisheries in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean has been banned since 1 January 2002. For its part, the Commission has contributed over a number of years to the financing of research projects and studies on the interaction of marine mammals and fishing activities.
However, there is no doubt that this issue (population assessment, by-catch monitoring, mitigation measures and habitats protection) has not satisfactorily been addressed by the Member States. The Commission is therefore convinced that additional Community measures are needed and must be applied in a consistent and co-operative manner at Community level. Hence the draft Regulation adopted on 24 July 2003.
Question 2
Q. Why has the Commission not proposed to ban pelagic pair trawling for bass which are responsible for the death of hundreds of dolphins?
A. The independent scientific advice (pdf187 Kb) from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) includes a specific reference to pelagic pair trawling for bass. According to the scientists, although the pelagic trawl fisheries for bass is often cited as being the fishery responsible for the dead dolphins beached on the English and French coasts, there is no direct evidence on which to blame specifically these fisheries.
A ban on pelagic trawling for bass would be an arbitrary measure, unlikely to achieve the desired goal, since fisheries other than the one for bass are also catching dolphins. There is certainly an urgent need for comprehensive monitoring on the numerous trawl fisheries taking place in this region and elsewhere. This is why the Commission has proposed the placing of on-board observers on a sample of vessels using pelagic trawls, among other gears.
Question 3
Q. Why has the Commission not proposed the use of pingers on pelagic trawls?
A. The reason is twofold:
Pingers have only been successfully tested on gill nets.
Tests carried out so far on pelagic trawls show that pingers are not a solution to the problem of cetacean by-catch.
Further research is needed on alternative designs of acoustic alarms before using them as mandatory deterrents. Scientists are also working on promising gear designs involving separator grids and escape windows which may help reduce by-catches in the near future.
Question 4
Q. Why ban driftnets in the Baltic?
A. Driftnets have already been banned since 1 January 2002 under EU legislation in tuna fisheries in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. While the incidence of porpoise by-catches in Baltic driftnets may be low, the impact of the death of even one individual is significant for what are the most critically endangered small cetaceans in Europe. This is why the Commission proposes as an immediate measure to limit the length of driftnets and to phase them out completely by January 2007.
In this case, as was the case with the tuna fisheries, it is not fishing for salmon that will be banned but the use of driftnets in the Baltic.
Question 5
Q. Are the proposed measures based on scientific advice?
A. The Commission asked ICES to provide an overview of fisheries that have a significant impact on small cetaceans, an assessment of the risks posed by these fisheries on identified populations and possible remedial action to reduce the impact of fishing. It also asked the STECF (Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee on Fisheries) to review ICES evidence, to add any relevant information and provide possible management advice. The reports from both ICES ( pdf187 Kb) and the STECF ( pdf187 Kb) are available to the public.
Both ICES and STECF have spelled out the type of regulatory measures that would be required in the short term. These can be summarised as:
Reduction in fishing effort in certain fisheries
Prohibition or limitation in the size of certain gears
Use of acoustic alarms (pingers) on gill nets
Monitoring by observers on board
Question 6
Q. Is the Commission aware of the sea trials carried out in some Member States to prevent by-catches of cetaceans?
A. Yes, of course. The Commission is aware of the trials carried out by several Member States to tackle this problem. Some of the technical solutions being tested, such as the use of an exclusion device in pair trawls, under test in the UK, still needs further trials.
The Commission fully supports the efforts made by the Member States and their fishing sectors to develop technical solutions to reduce the incidental catches of cetaceans. We need to continue to work together to progress in this field.
Question 7
Q. What is the estimated cost of the proposed measures on the fishing industry?
A. In its proposal (pdf 187 Kb), the Commission has included a section assessing the potential economic impact of the measures on the fleets concerned.
Limiting driftnets to 2.5 km followed by a ban:
Driftnetting for salmon in the Baltic Sea is an essentially seasonal fishery. In 2001, out of the 233 EU and non EU vessels engaged in offshore salmon fishing, 79 EU vessels fished for less than 20 days per year (Finland: 35, Sweden: 33, Denmark: 11) and 24 for more than 40 days (Denmark: 9, Finland: 8, Sweden 7). It would appear that only the latter derive half their annual income from this fishery.
On the basis of earlier research by the STECF, it is estimated that limiting driftnets to 2.5 Km would make this fishery uneconomic. A redistribution of fishing effort towards other species or to alternative salmon fishing techniques is most likely. The cost involved in this adjustment may be eligible for public aid from the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG).
Use of pingers
Logically costs will vary according to the total number of pingers required and the cost and specifications of the model used. As demand for the devices grows, competition among manufacturers and scale effects should lead to a reduction in the price. An economic benefit should be derived from the measure in that its application should lead to a reduction in the extent of gear damage due to incidental catches of cetaceans.
The Commission estimates that to equip a vessel using between 5 to 20 Km of nets would represent an initial cost of between € 2,500 to 10,000 (or an additional fishing cost of € 0.05 per Km of net and hour of fishing).
Some of the initial cost of pingers could be eligible for public aid from FIFG as funding is available for the adoption of more selective fishing methods.
On-board observers
This cost, which is to be borne by the Member States concerned, will vary significantly according to the number of vessels involved and the nature of the scheme adopted. However, this should not be a new financial burden for the Member States concerned, since they were already required to monitor accidental catches of cetaceans under the Habitats Directive.
Top
|
